5
$\begingroup$

A question was asked by someone in March 2015. It had 4 answers.

I added a (fifth) answer on 26th Sep, 2016 (18 months later) and the question was put on hold the next day.

Can someone please explain if this sounds normal, or my answer had a reaction.

The question is Entanglement, real or just math?

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Note that the lack of time-limits of community moderation actions is by design. Many (most, I suspect) of the Stack Exchange communities have taken time and trial-and-error to converge on their asymptotic notion of topicality which implies that some question need to be either closed or re-opened long after their original posting or closure. Nor is there any guarantee that a post did not original slip by unnoticed during an especial active time or one when the most active curators of the community were not present. So, a late action does not by itself imply a problem. $\endgroup$ – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten♦ Sep 30 '16 at 21:07
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee: The question was up voted 12 times, favorite of 10, the answers were up voted 14, 9 and 7 times. That means, tens of people not only understood the question, but also found the answers worth up voting. Then this question becomes unclear, does not sound too good. $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 30 '16 at 22:23
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ And, so? There are examples on Stack Overflow of questions with more than 100 upvotes that were later ruled off topic and not only closed but eventually deleted. Others were subjected to the historical lock. Leaving old question that are no-longer on-topic open would be a notional broken window. Likewise, if the understanding of topicality changes then some once closed question ought to be re-opened. Argue this case on it's merits, but there is no expectation that because it has been open for a long time it should continue to be open on that basis. $\endgroup$ – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten♦ Sep 30 '16 at 22:28
  • $\begingroup$ "Can someone please explain if this sounds normal, or my answer had a reaction." - I see that your answer has received numerous down votes so I think it's rational to conclude your answer had some kind of reaction. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Oct 1 '16 at 2:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The first line of the question is "In quantum entanglement when something acts on one particle the other one reacts also, just in reverse (more or less)." Who upvoted this? $\endgroup$ – WillO Oct 1 '16 at 3:10
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @AlfredCentauri: That would be an interesting reaction to put the question on hold because the answer was down voted, interesting moderation! Moreover, I do not care about the score much, but I consider certain down votes - up votes indeed, and I recognize these down votes pretty well. These are quantum heads guarding against any questioning or scrutiny instead of challenging the scrutiny with evidence or logic. So, does not bother me at all, used to it. $\endgroup$ – kpv Oct 1 '16 at 3:33
3
$\begingroup$

The comments on the post seem to indicate that those closing thought it was unclear. It has nothing to do with your answer -- well, not exactly anyway.

When you edit a post or answer a question, it bumps the question back to the front page of the website. When you answered the question, that put it back on the front page and that meant people would notice it. Maybe they hadn't before, maybe they did, who knows.

But this time, it got put on the front page and enough people voted to put it on hold that it is now there, pending clarification. It's also started to accumulate reopen votes, so at least somebody disagrees with the close reason.

Most likely the question slipped through unnoticed early on and when it got bumped to the front page, it opened it up for inspection again and at least 5 people found it to be unclear.

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The question was up voted 12 times, favorite of 10, the answers were up voted 14, 9 and 7 times. That means, tens of people not only understood the question, but also found the answers worth up voting. Then this question becomes unclear, does not sound too good. $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 30 '16 at 21:58
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @kpv none of that is relevant to whether the question is worthy of closing. In particular, the fact that people upvote a question or post answers to it doesn't mean that it's clear. $\endgroup$ – David Z♦ Oct 1 '16 at 11:31
-1
$\begingroup$

Just for reference, the question has now been reopened. It seems that enough people disagreed with the close reason to reopen it. However, this really doesn't mean that it was somehow "wrong" to vote to close after it had been favorited and answered and upvoted. It just means users believed it was or wasn't on topic. In this case, there are enough users for each side that it swung back and forth. As an aside, I might ask a new meta question asking whether it is or isn't on-topic, as I think that will be an interesting discussion. Finally, as for your answer, it is currently at -6 downvotes and counting. I doubt, however, that this was the reason that users closed it (or at least, it shouldn't have been, in my mind).

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't it sound more of a comment, @heather? That's my opinion though. $\endgroup$ – user36790 Oct 4 '16 at 18:03
  • $\begingroup$ @MAFIA36790, the first part is indeed more of a comment, but I think the second part answers the question. $\endgroup$ – heather Oct 4 '16 at 20:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .